 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cameron v. State12/29/1994
hat this case be dismissed"; "that further prosecution in the matter be barred and "for such other and further relief as to this cause may seem just and proper."
At the time of the filing of the Motion to Dismiss (indeed, up until the effective date of the mandate herein), "this case," i.e., the charges against the appellant were the greater charge of DWI and the lesser charge of DUI. Thus, it appears that he sought dismissal of all charges.
In any event, we shall rely on the precedent set in Flaherty v. State, 322 Md. 356, 587 A.2d 522 (1991). There, the defendant had been charged with driving while intoxicated. Id. at 358. He entered a plea of guilty to driving while under the influence of alcohol, a lesser-included charge. Id. The lower court judge questioned defendant to be certain that the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered, and after he was convinced, the judge accepted the plea. Id. Probation before judgment was granted by the judge and a written order was completed. Id. at 359. Due to a series of odd circumstances, defendant appeared before the judge again later, the judge struck the guilty plea, and a date was set for trial of the original charge of driving while intoxicated. Id. at 362. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found that defendant's plea had been properly tendered and accepted. Id. at 363. In addition, "further proceedings in the case would violate [the defendant's] constitutional and common law right not to be twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense." Id. The court explained:
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects, among other things, against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction. Striking the finding of guilt and subjecting Flaherty to a new trial would, under the circumstances of this case, violate the constitutional prohibition against placing Flaherty twice in jeopardy for the same offense.
Id. at 365 (citations omitted). Accordingly, the court held that the finding of guilt and the sentence were incorrectly set aside, and they remanded for reinstatement of the probation before judgment and to grant defendant's motion to dismiss further proceedings. Id. at 366-67.
As in Flaherty, if the trial court's erroneous striking of the judgment were not set aside, appellant would be twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense. On remand, the circuit court should reinstate Cameron's guilty plea and sentence and grant his motion to dismiss insofar as it relates to further proceedings on the charge of driving while intoxicated.
JUDGMENTS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ALLEGANY COUNTY REVERSED; CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION; COSTS TO BE PAID BY ALLEGANY COUNTY.
Disposition
JUDGMENTS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ALLEGANY COUNTY REVERSED; CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION; COSTS TO BE PAID BY ALLEGANY COUNTY.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Maryland DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|